Have Wallet Cards Helped Fish?

Or simply hurt trees and consumer's brains? David Biello reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Americans eat more fish than ever. We now

gobble up more than two million tons of seafood a year compared to just half a million at the dawn of the 20th century. Not only are there more of us, we're also eating more fish—globally.  

That's led to a


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


global collapse of many fisheries , such as cod in the North Atlantic. To help forestall this ecological catastrophe a variety of sustainable-seafood certification schemes have emerged. And the Monterey Bay Aquarium released its first seafood wallet card in 2000.  

Intended to help sea-foodies avoid the worst fish, such as

tuna or Chilean sea bass, wallet cards—and iPhone apps—have proliferated. But have they helped?  

The answer is no, according to a study in Oryx. Simply because the wallet cards are confusing.  

For example, even though the

U.S. imports more than 80 percent of its seafood …wallet cards here focus mainly on fish from our national fisheries.  

Further adding to the confusion, different cards make different choices.

Atlantic halibut is a no-go for most but Monterey Bay recommends it as a sustainable choice.  

After distributing more than one million wallet cards, Monterey Bay's own research reveals that they had no impact whatsoever—no changes in buying practices, no changes in the fisheries themselves. In fact, we're eating more seafood than ever and more of it comes from the least sustainable fisheries: shrimp, tuna and

salmon .

—David Biello

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe